Unlicci States
Oflice of
Prelection
DC ?-WGO
April 1986 '
EPAGQ3.'8-B8.'002
Report to Congress on
Administration of The Marine
Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as
Amended (RL 92-532)
1984 - 1986
-------
-------
Report to Congress
January 1, 1984-December 31, 1986
on Administration
of The Marine Protectionr
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972,
As Amended {P.L. 92-532)
-------
\533y UN|TED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20450
APR 191988
Honorable George Bush THE AOHtN1STRAT(5F,
President of the Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Wr. President;
Section 112 of the Marine Protection, Research, and
i f ! ~Ct °5 PI2'.as fmenaed' requires the Administrator
f£ 2lal *r0tfctlcm A^ncy tEM) to wfcwit «« annual
report on the administration of the ocean dumping program
££™l! U?Ker I!?1? T of-the ftct' ttla el^enth report to the
Congress on the administration of Title I of the Marine
?£? f*!?11' Fes5arch' aftd Sanctuaries Act is transmitted with
this letter, and covers the implementation of EPA-S ocean ctapinq
progcanu as well as those activities necessary to implemLt^he
London Dumping Convention, during calendar years 1984, lies and
X 3 Otl t
Quring the time period covered in the report, the Agency has
shown its heightened commitment to protect ^Nation's ocean
environment through actions to establish the Office of Marine and
SSE'li;* n^0tfCti°^ t0 ^"M coordination m& cooperation
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the designaticm of
dredged material ocean disposal sites, ana to designate the
Deepwater Municipal Sludge Dump Site and begin transfer to it of
court-ordered" sludge dumping from the 12-Mile site. Meanwhile,
the amounts of sewage sludge and industrial wastes which were
ocean dumped have remained near Ifi3 levels throughout the
period. The Ocean Dumping Regulations are under revision to
respond to two lawsuits and amendments to the Act,
The dumping into ocean waters of all material, except
dredged material, is regttlated by 1PA permits. The n. S, Arw
Cot ps of Engineers (the Corps) issues permits foe dredged
materials. This report does not contain a discussion of the
Corps' activities except as they affect Em's responsibilities
we hope that the information provided in this report will be
useful to the Senate in assessing the status and direction o£ the
Si nee rely,
Lee M. Thomas
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C.
APR I 9 1968
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Honorable James C, Wright, Jr.
Speaker of the House
of Pepresentatives
Washington, D
-------
-------
Report to Congress
January 1, 1984 - December 31, 1986
Executive Summary
The Report to Congress this year reflects major
changes in the direttton and implementation of the
Environmental Protection Agency's [EPAI Ocean
During Program during the last ttnee yew* This
report cavers EPA's activities under the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act and activi-
ties related to the London Dumping Convention, during
the three calendar vea|B' 1984-19B6.
EPA established the Office Of Marine and Estuarine
Protection in 1984. This move reflects the Agency's
continuing and heightened commitment to protection
of the nation's marine waters,
In 1986, EPA Headquarters delegated its program for
designating siles for disposal of dredged material, fish
processing wsie and for burning drifftvood and olher
wood debris to the EPA regional Offices, EPA is cur-
rently negotiating a National-Isval Memorandum of
Understanding with the US, Army Corps of Engineers
Ithe Cotpst to expedite designation of dnedged material
ocean dumping sites.
Draft or Final ElSs heve been completed for 47 of
tha 51 Consent Agreement sites per resoution of the
National Wildlife Federation lawsuit in 1980. EPA has
completed the site designation process for 33 sites.
Of these, 25 are Consent Agreement sites,
EPA has increased tht emphasis on site manage-
ment through site monitoring, EPA's data base man-
agement and analysis of monitoring dew will be-
applied to continued designation of sites as will as
to better management of existing ocean disposal sites.
Monitoring at tile D*epwa«r Municipal SkicSge Dump
Sita and the Tempi Dredged Material Disposal
Site serve as examples which illustrate that EPA is
moving in ihe direction of adopting a tiered monitor-
ing strategy.
Sewage sludge disposed in the ocean has declined
somewhat-from the 1983 level of 8.3 million ml tons,
to approximately seven and one-half million wet tons
each year for 1384-19S6, Municipal sewage authorities
which haw been dumping sludge under court order
at tha expired 12-Mile Sewage Sludge Disposal Site
in the Mew "fork Bight, have been placed on schedules
to ttansfer to and have started to dispose of their
sewage sludge at the Deepvueiter Municipal Sludge
Dump Site, also known as the 106-Mile Site, In
designating the Deepwater Site, 6PA also denwd the
petition by the sewage authorities to r&designptt the
12-Wile Site,
Quantities of industrial wastes that were disposed
under the Ocean Dumping Program decliwd in 1383
and Mitnain near the 1983 amounts, averaging 0.28
million wet tons from 19844986.
The Ocean Dumping Regulations are currently
undergoing revision to respond to two lawsuits and
amendments to the AtL
EPA is working to resolve issues of major public
concern that were, submitted in response to the
Agency's February 1985 proposed ocean incinera-
tion regulations. An ongoing EPA research prog ram
is investigating potential effects of ocean
incineration. EPA is considering for designation four
sites for incineration-at-sea in ihe following ireas —
Gulf of Mexico, West coast, Northeast coast and
Southeast coast of the U.S.
-------
Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary . t >, _ , \
Introduction .
Marine Proteqtion, Research, and
Sanctuaries Ad, as Amended (P.L 92-532J , 2
London Dumping Conventton ,,.,,.., 4
The Permit Program T _ g
Ocean Dumping Site Designations 10
Municipal Sludge DisposaJ , _,,.,.. 23
Monitoring at the Deepwater
Municipal Sludge Dump Site (DMSD) T 25
OSV Peter W. Anderson ,, 2?
Tampa Harbor Dredged Material Disposa Project 29
Incineration at Sea , , 31
Near Coastal Waters Planning Initiative ,,.. . 33
Radiation Program , 34
Enforcement.., , 35
-------
Tables
Table I. Contracting Parties to the London
Dumping Convention as of December 31, 1986 - 5
Table II, Special Permits Issued, Quantities
of Materials Dumped in 1984, 1985, and 1986 '
Table 111. Quantities of Sewage Sludge
Dumped Under Court Order in 1984, 1985, and 1966 , «
Table IV. Status of Individual Consent Agreement Sites
as of December 31, 1986 - - 12
Table V. Sites That Have Received Final Action
as of December 31, 1986
a. Consent Agmsment Sites
b, Non-Consent Agreement Sites -
Table VI. Newly Requested Ocean Disposal Sites
as of December 31, 1986 .,,, -
Table VIL Sites Surveyed from 1984 to 1986 28
Figures
^^m^^m
Figure I. Sewage Sludge and Industrial Waste
Ocean Disposed in U.S. Waters Between 1873 and 1986 9
Figure LI. Consent Agreement Site
Designation Status Through December 31, 1986
Figure HI. Non-Consent Agreement Site
Designation Status Through December 31, 1986
Figures IV-VI. Ocean Dump Site Designation
Status by Region (\, II, lll^-Atiantic Ocean - - * • - 15
Figures VM-VII1. Ocean Dump Site Designation Status
by Region (IV, VI)-Gulf of Mexico .... 18
Figures IX-X, Ocean Dump Site Designation
Status by Region fIX, X)-Pscific Ocean • 20
iti
-------
-------
• ,',-, ?, :^ ,'•*, fc^*jr^t;4r
I- V;j >.£• •---Vl iSwSS?^^' ^':''" "''l "•;"" ' " '" '''
•S^^^S^^^r- •:
:&•
Introduction
The U S, Environmantal Protection Agency
pfesents its eleventh report to the Congress on the
administration of Title I of the Marine Protects,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended
(the AcO- This report covers the implementation of
the Agency's responsibilities under Title I of the Act
in carrying out the ocsan dumping program, in-
cluding activities conducted within EPA Head-
qygrters and the Regions dwrirtg calendar pars
1S84, 198& and 1986-
The U S Army Corps of Engineers [the Corps!,
the U S ' Coast Guard (USCG), and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (MQAAJ
also have responsibilities under the Act- THe Corps
and NOAA submit separate reports on their
activities in implementing the Act; consequently,
this report does not include a discussion of iho(r
activities except as they Affect the responsibility
of EPA-
EPA established the Office of Marine and
Estuarine Protection in 19B4. This move reflects the
Agency's continuing and heightened commit-
ment to protection of the nation's marine waters.
-------
WSS fi> S-C.
The Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act
of 1972, as Amended {P.L. 92-532)
Purpose
Tlhe purpose of Title I of the Marina Protection,
Research, and Sanetuafjes ACT of 1972 frMPRSA)
is to regulate the transportation for ocean dump-
ing, and to prevent the dumping c< any material in
ocean waters which would unreasonably degrade or
endanger human health, wafers, or amenities, or the
marine environment, ecologicar" systems, or economic
potentialities, To implement this purpose and to
control dumping Fn ocean waters, Trtle I of the Act
establishes* permit program and assigns ii&tnJmini's-
lotion to EPA and the Corps, Title I a so authorizes
trie EPA Administrator to designate sites where ocean
dumping may be permitted gr prohibited.
Also under Title I, the Coast Guarcf is given the
responsibility for c0r>ductirig surveillance and other
appropriate enforcement activities to prevent unlawful
ocean dumping, to ensure that the dumping occurs
under a valid permit, at the designated location, and
in the manner specified in the permit.
Titfe It reeruiras NQAA and EPA to conduct a
comprehensive and continuing program of research
and monitoring regarding the effects of the dumping
of materials into ocean viaters. Title IIJ gives NOAA
the authority to establish marine sanctuaries*
Trie (VIPRSA is also ft* domestic legisiatlon for
irnpfementing the provisions of the Convention on trie
Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes
and1 Other Matter (London Dumping Convention}, an
international agreement for regulating ocean
dumping, which is described later In this report.
Transportation from the United States of any radio
loyruai, chemical, or biotogical warfareag^nt or high-
level radioactive wa$t» fee the purpose of dumping
into ocean waters, the territorial sea, or the con-
tiguous zone is prohibited. Transportation of other
materials (except dredged materials) fortha purpose
of dumping is prohibited except when authorized
under a permit issued by the Administrator of EPA
or his designee,
Based upon consideraliorts outlined in Section 102
of the Act, the Administrator is requited to establish
and apply criteria for re^jiewing ar»d evaluating permit
applications. To the extent that he may do so without
-------
relaxing the /equiremt nf$ of Section 102, the Admin-
istrator shall apply the standards and critnria binding
upon the United States under the todon Dumping
Convention. Permits may he issued for dumping at
a site designated by EPA after determining that the
dumping involved will not unreasonably degrade or
endanger human health m ttw marine environment.
Before"a permit is issued, EPA must give notice and
opportunity for a public hearing. Dumping of dredged
material is regulated undef permits issued by the
Corps of Engineers in accordance with EPA criteria.
EPA is also authorized to revoke Or modify permits
and to assess civil penalties for violation of permit
conditions, The Attorney General may initfate criminal
action against persons who knowingly violate the Act.
Recent Changes
The Agency is currently working on proposed re-
visions to the ocean dumping regulations which will
respond to the results of two lawsuits, statutory
amendments, and program experience. As a result of
Oix of tew to* K EPA, 543 F. Supp, KH4 (S.&NY,
1361), EPA is obliged to amend its regulations to
femoU the categorical prohibition against the ocean
dumping Of materials which fell the regulation's marine
impact criteria, The court, in that lawsuit, ruled that
6PA must consider all the relevant statutory factors
set forth, in Section KK of MPRSA, including t» need
for ocean dumping, and availability and impacts of
tend.based alternatives, in Caching a determination
on whether to issue an ocean dumping permit, In
National W/rMffe fedemncm v, Costte, 623 F, 2d 118
(D.C. Cir.r 19801, the emit ruled that white it was
permissible under the MPRSA to treat dredged
material differently than other typ«& of material, an
adequate explanation of the basis for the different
treatment accorded dredged material had not been
provided, The proposed regulatory revisions will
respond to the results of that lawsuit,
On Januarys, 1383, the President signed Pt 97-424
(the Surface Transportation Assistance Art. of 1982)
containing an amendment to the MPRSA for the
disposal of lew-level radioactive waste, which required
that for a period of 2 yea^ 3Hfter enactment, only
research pwmits could be issued for the materials.
After January Br 1985, any permit for the disposal of
!nw4evel radioactive waste requires preparation of s
site-specific Radioactive Material Disposal Impact
Assessment by the applicant, and rvo permit may be
issued by £*% unless authorized by Joint Resolution
of both Houses of Congiess- EPA has not issued any
permits for radioactive waste disposal. The Agency
is also developing regulations and guidance
documents on site designation and packaging
requirements for lov^lfe/el radioactive wgste materials.
-------
London Dumping Convention
Tht Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution
by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London
Dumping Convention or LDCS is ar> international
agreement requiring ihe membei nations, known as
Contracting Parties, to establish rational systems to
control all substances leaving their stones for the
purpose of being dumped at sea. The Convention
was negotiated in London in Novimbgf 1972 and
cams into force on August 30, 1975, following ihc
^squired 15 ratifications or accessions,
The MPRSA, which is the U-S. authority for imple-
menting international reqqiremerrt&lw the control of
ocean dumping, was amended in 1974 and 1980 to
bring the Act into conformancg with the Convention,
Technical aspects of the Convention regarding
tvpes of materials and other factore are contained in
three annexes. Annex I establishes s "bfack list" of
Hutstances whose dumping is prohibited unless they
are present only as "trace contaminants" or would
be "rapidly rendered harmless" in the marine
environment. Tha substances on this Jist are mercury
and cadmium and their compounds, orgenohaiogen
compounds sych as DDT and PCB's, persistent
plastics, and crude oil and petroleum by-products.
Dumping of high-level radioactive wastes, and1
chemical and biological warfare ggents is completeJy
prohibited.
Annex II contains a category of substances
requiring "special permits," as welJ as special cg-ns in
dumping. Thase substances include heavy metal
compounds, cyanides, fluorides, tow-level radioactive
wastes, and eqntain&s and other bulky wastes which
could present serious obstacles to fishing or
navigation. Dumping of subalances not listed in
Annexes I and II requires a "general permit."
Annex III sets forth factors to be considered
regarding characteristics and composition of the
material, method of disposal, and characteristics of
the dumping site, h»fwe a permit may ba issued.
The Convention provides that each Contracting
Party take appropriate steps to ensure that the terms
of the Convention appty to its flagships and aincraft
and to any vessel or aincraft loading in hs potts for
the purpose of ocean dumping. Full continuous use is
to be made of the best salable technical
in implementing thg Commtion. If* addition, periodic
meetings and planned participation by appropriate
international technical bodies is designed to keep the
contents of the Annexes up to date and reafistic in
meeting the needs for controlling ocean pollution
stemming from ocean dumping.
Ccnsukative Meetings of the Contracting Parties
have generally been convened on. an annual basis
since 1976, Aft hoc advisory groups are established
to work on particular subjects when necessary. The
most significant of these are the Scientific Group on
Dumping, the Working Group on Incineration at Sea,
and the Group of Legal Experts.
The 3d hoc Scientific Group his met inter-
sessionally on an annual basis since 1977 as the
scientific and technical advisory body of the Consul-
tative Meetings. In 1383, the Seventh Consukative
Meeting established the K* hoc Scientific Group as
the permanent Scientific Group on Dumping. The
working process used by Consultative Meetings—
namely, to establish ad hoc working groups of
experts, and ate considfting their ^cfwiee, to proceed
with a view towards reaching consensus on critical
questions—has proved to b© effective,
The work of trie Consultative Meetings has been
very effective in developing and adopting arrienti-
ments^ regulations, consultation, test, and notification
procedures, and recommendations m the form of
technical guidelines. Of particular significance ane the
procedure for settlemenl of dsputes; regulations and
recommended technical guidelines for control of
incineration at sea; the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) definiiiofl of high-level radioactive
waste prohibited from sea disposal and recommen-
dations for disposal erf otter radioactive wastes at sea;
and interim guidelines to impigmentation of Para-
graphs S and 9 of Annex I, which refer to the "rapidty
rendered harmless" and "trace contaminants"
provisions.
The LDC recognizes the IAEA as the international
authority to define high-leuel radioactive waste. In 1984
and 1985, EPA provided the U.S. repjiesentalive to th*s
technical efforts of the IAEA to revis© the definition
-------
of high-level radioactive waste and refine the inter-
national guidance on ocean disposal pursuant to the
London Dumping Convention,
The major issue «t the Seventh, Eighth, and Niitth
Consultative Meeting* and 9 railing fa voluntary moratorig
on the wean disposal of low-teve! radioattiw vostes
until a variety of issues were studied, including a
sctentilic reyiaw by an expert panel. The report of this
panel was presented at LDC 9.
The report of the expert panel did not contain firm
conclusions regarding Aether there *« scientific
evidence 10 support a prohibition of ocean dumping
oT lew-lave! radioactive wastes. There was a diversity
of views expressed by individual Contracting Parties
about what conclusions could be drawn from the
expert panel report, and efforts to reach a consensus
were unsuccessful. A resolution was passed at LDC
9 calling for a legally non-binding moratorium on
ocean dumpins of kw-level adioacrive wastes
pending completion of additional studies and
assessments.
In other areas erf interest, consensus was reached
on adoption of guidelines for the implementation of
Annex III erf the Convention, criteria far allo-
cating substances to Annexes I and II of the Con-
witton. and a long-range strategy for implementing
the Convention.
At the Tenth Cortsuitativt Meeting (LOG 101 m
1805, agreement was reached to set up a panel^o*
experts to examine ihe wider political, legal, social,
and Bconomtc aspects of low-level radioactive waste
disposal it sea, and a questionnaire was developed
to solicit technical input fiom contracting parties to
develop detailed guidance for examining these issues.
These aspects are part of the additional studies and
assessments identified ai LDC 9. Special guidelines
on the implementation of Annex 111 for dredged
materM WOT adopted to clarify the application of the
Annex III fiacre for ocean disposal of dredged
material as a special kind of waste Efforts were begun
to review the overall stwcture of the Annexes to see
if the regulatory approach incorporated in the Annexes
can be improved.
The United States is represented 3t the LOG by a
delegation appointed by ihe State Department The
delegation includes a US. representative and advisore
on particular topics. U.S. policy poofon* are
developed through an interagency working group
under State Department leadership,
Table I lists the contacting parties to (to LDC as
of December 31, 1986,
Table I. Contracting Parties to the London
Dumping Convention as of December 31 1986
Arab Jamahiriya
Argentina
Belgium
Braiil
Byeksruasian SSR
Canada
Chile
Cuba
Denmark
Dominican
Finland
France
Gabon
Democratic
Germany, Federal
Republic of
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Jordan
Kenya
Kiribati
Monaco
Morocco
Netherlands
Hew Zealand
Oman
Panama
Papua, New Guinea
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Seychelles
Solornon islands
South Africa
Spain
Surinam
Switzerland
Ukrainian
United Arab
USSR
Kingdom
Stales
Zaire
-------
The Permit Program
The Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria (40 CFR
P^rts 220-229) published Jinuiry IT, 5977, identify five
types o[ permits under the Ocean DtimpFn-g Program.
They are General, Interim, Special, Emergency, and
Research Permits,
General Permits
General Permits are established by amendment to trie
the Ocean Dumping ReguJetions. Three GeneraF
Permits weie established in ihe W? regulations. They are
for facirigP at sea, transportation of target vessels by the
U.S. Wavy for the purpose of sfnking the vessels in ocean
waters in testing ordnance end pjeviding
-------
exposed to water vapor in the atmosphere, this
material forms phosphine gas, an extremely toxic
and unstable compound, the Agency considered
the potential impacts to the marine environment of
dumping this material and concluded that after
reacting with sea water, the effects of ocean
dumping would be temporary andt localized- Sfrtce
the material ir» its existing state posed a major
potential threat to public health and a review of
ciiher possible disposal mwsures indicated such
alternatives were not feasible, an emergency ocean
dumping permit was issued for disposal of the
material in the Gulf of Mexico, No emergency
permits Wire issued in 1985 or 1966.
Research Permit^
Wo applications were received, nor weie any permits
issued in 1934. Two applications for irwirwation-
al-sea research permits were received in 1985, how-
evef, no permits were issued- Two applications were
received from fish canneries, and Region IX pre-
pared 3 research permit in 1988 to cover this
dumping activity.
Table It, Special Permits Issued-
Quantities of Materials Dumped in 1984r 1985, and 1986
Quantities in Thousand Wet Tons
1984 1985_ 1986
II
Acid Waste Site {NY Bight Apex):
Allied Chemical Corp,1 NY
Deap water Industrial Waste Site:
DuPont •• Edge Moor2 DE
- Grasselll3 MJ
Cellar Dirt Site {NY light Apex);
Port Liberte, NJ
Region IX
Fish Wastes Site
Samoa Packing, American Samoa
Star Kisl, American Samoa
Oil Drilling Muds and Cuttings
THUMS Long Beach, CA
40
19
145
7,9
40
0
100
4.6
20-3
2-7
34
140
73
21.4
24,1
13,6
220,9
1 Hydrochloric add waste
3 Soluiion of a-lkalifM! sodiu/n
'"No permit issued
arid mistelljnflous chtondw and hydrochloric acid wastes
-------
Court Orders
As explained in the test Report to Congress, nine
municipal sewage authorities which had previously
held interim permits are dumping sewage sludge
pursuant to court orders issued by United States
district courts in New York and New Jersey, These
authorities have been Acquired to $ubmlt permit
appfieatiom to the Agency, and as will be ex plained
in more detail in the chapter on sewage sludge
dumping, currently ane shifting their dumping from
the 12-Mile Site to the Deepwatar MunEqipal Sfudge
Dump Site Table III lists the authorities durrrping under
court orders and the amounts dumped under such
orders in 1984, 1085, and 1986.
Figure I shows the total amount of ocean
dumping of industrial waste and sewage sludge
from 1073-1986, The amounts of Industrial wastes
that were ocean dumped under EPA permits show
a continued downward trend and have been
decreased by over two thirds from 1982 to 1983.
They *i«ve remained near the 1933 levels in each of
the three years 1984-1986.
The ocein dumping of sewage studgd has
occurred under court order since 1981. The
amounts of sewage sludge decreased somiwhal
during the years 1084-1966, from a high in 1983
of 8.3 million wet ton*. However, there is an
increase from 7.0 million wet tons in 1984 to
7,9 million wet tons in 1986. it Is difficult to
determine if there is fl sign if leant dlfferencs tn
the i mounts of solids actually d urn pad because
these quantities are reported in wet tons. The
differences may simply be attributed to the degree
of dewatering,
Tabte III. Quantities of Sewage Sludge Dumped
Undir Court Order in 1984, 1985, and 1986
Quantities tn Thousand Wet Tons
19S4 1985 1986
Region II
Sewage Authorities
Berg en County Utilities Authority NJ
Joint Meeting of Essex and Union
Counties MJ
Lin (Jen Roselle Sewerage Authority NJ
Middlesex County Utilities Authority NJ
Massau County Dept. of Public: Works NY
New York City Dept, of Environmental
Prelection NY
Psssaic Vglley Sewerage Commission NJ
Rah way Valley Sewerage Authority NJ
W-9S 1C h ester County Dept, of Environmental
Facilities NY
255
385
235
see
520
3,OB5
354
160
539
6,959
309
341
95
1,039
67©
3,345
884
187
470
7(24fi
363
238
93
1,018
709
3.5&1
1,317
m
506
7,923
-------
9
8
w
c
.2 6
|2
I
0
I
Sewage
Sludge
Industrial
Wsste
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1S78 1973 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986
Year
Note; For the purpose of this graph. Industrial Waste Category
also includes Fish Waste and Construction Debris
Figure 1. Sewage Sludge and Industrial Waste Ocean
Disposed in ULS- Waters Between 1373 and 19S6
-------
Table VI. Newly Requested Ocean Disposal Sites as of December 31, 1986
r, PR
Mud Dump Site replacement
Ft, Myers Beach, FL
Tampa 30-Mile Site, FL
San Francisco (Deep Water), CA
Kwajalein Atoll, Trust Territory
Pi go Pago, Amer. Samoa
Saipan, CNMI"
Grays Harbor, WA
Akutan, AK
Island, CA
-------
10 Newburyport
Marblehead (Foul Area Disposal Site)
Boston (Cape Cod Bay!
EPA RegionH( Oil ice
Type of Site:
DOwSENT
Non-Consent A§r««iTn;ii[
Waste Gates e»ry:
O
6 Indusnol W»SiW
IXl Fish
A OlHci
Status of
O Aclini
f> IDe-l
Figure IV. Region I !5 Sites) Ocein Dump Site Designation Status
15
-------
&&'&*£&Sffi&JK*; :''£•!?••<"•
MIJP
CELLAR
Sli*
ACID WASTE SITE
Woodburnina Sim
MANA5QUAN INLET
ABSECON INLET
€(JLD SPfllhlfi IN Lit
BEEP WATEH iNOUSTRmi WASTE SITE
DEEP WATER MUM I OPAL
F SLUDGE SITE •
EI*A
Typfi of Site:
CONSENT AGREEMENT
N0f>-CoflMfll AprgBlTlOnt
Waste Category:
O Dritdgntf M3[&!r3f
Pi Sflw^jg* SludQo
A InduSlliSl W*'1e
6x5 Fsh wane Siw
0 Oihei
Status of Designation:
Bute Proposed
^ulo Fin.il
North AtlaniK lMiMraiiM$iia
*'ecibo Q O SAN JUAN
VIEQUES
Figure V. Region Jl (23 Sites} Ocean Dump Site Designation Status
16
-------
•^If iPA Regional Office
Type of Site:
CQKEENT AGKEtMENT
Nan Cnrisftril A$riruM£ii[
Waste Category:
O
D
CKl Fish WJ!.« Si:a
A Ofhnr
Status of Designation;
0 Aaron
<(} ([>*•! DtSiQfldUOH Rule
S <0«-f Oe-sii|n»iiQri R«l*
Figure VI, Region IH (2 Sites} Ocean Dump Site Designation Status
17
-------
f O Georgetown
CM AH LEST ON G itaj
•Port Fkwil \1 Si
• -- *•--•**• * ~.-^.\;'*.•..-. ':.•>. •>;.'•,
Ponce do Loon tnlrt B$n«l
^
Ccaar Rs^i f2 Sh
PENSACOLA
^nsm^ C
si. Jn» (? Shasl
BPA Regional Office
4> Ljrgn Bnund
of Site;
CONS6NT
»4on -
CUV
fiULFPORT (2
lnlet
Polm OoKh M»bor (2 SltosI
Waste Category:
0 Dtpdgcd Maiatiafl
D Ssvrta* Kludge
A Industrial Waste
IX Fish WBSIB Sue
Status of Designation;
Q A^1i*wi Pending
C1 (Ot't Dnsignatian flul'J
Figure VII. Region IV [42 Sites) Ocean Dump Site Designation Stilus
T8
-------
Mmmtniau Bitwp 12 Sho»)
17 Silus)
SABIN6-NECH6S H Sues)
CSyM Incineration Siro
•^ EPA Regional Office
Type of Site:
CWSFNF AGftCtMEJsT
Non-tonstm Agiuemtni
Waste
O
O
iiM* 5itO
Status of Designation;
O
Hi (OS- 1
ikj" F!ul«
Figure VIII. Region VI [30 Sites) Ocean Dump Site Designation Status
19
-------
Ciiy -~~-Q
HlJMftOLOT BAY HARBOR
Noryo Hivar -^0
FA* ALLOW BLAiNOS HM fAfHQMS!
San Fr«ncisc*> Oa*j> W*,_,
5AH F1PANCIBCD CHANNEL BAR
Moss Landirkj (Z Shea)
Zfawiliwili
uuiN Qahu
Harbo*
Port
IL*
LOMQ BEACH tLA
Sun Ntote A
; Beach [LA
Thymi
.AN DIEQO POIIWr LOMA ILA 41 -O
P
SAN HUGO 100 FATHOM (LA s>
Adjll
Samoa
-------
•jf EPA fueimtal OHice
Type of Site:
CQNStNT
Waste Category;
O Oi edge" Maionsl
Ci-q r«h Wiie 5ii*
Status of Designation;
O ftci.oi> p^avy
Figure X, Region X (23 Sites) Ocean Dump Site Designation Status
21
-------
Delegation of Site
Designation Authority for
Dredged Material Disposal
Site Management
On December 23, 1386, EPA Headquarters -
gated responsibility to the Regional ofri«s for the
designation of ocean dumping stei for dredged
material. Regional delegation will anhance focaJ
coordination, artd expsditethe site designation deci-
sionmaking process, in adrftion to srtas for dredged
materials, authority was also delegated to designate
-sites for fish wastes when a permit under Section
102 df the MPRSA is required, and for woodburn-
fng in Region II, as these sites and activities were
deemed to be more appropriately handled at the
regional levef.
The EPA Office of Marine and Eatuarine Pro-
tection (OMEP] pubfished a final guidance manual
Ocean Dumping Site Designation Delegation
Handbook for Dredged Material/' -for carrying out
these defogatcd responsibilities (September 30
1986) after EPA Regional offices' and tht Corps of
Engineers' review and comments. OMEP also hald
regional wrksnops to train Regional personnel
fn a further effort to expedite (he designation of
ocean dumping sites for dredged materials EPA
began negotiating a national umbrella Memoran-
dum of Understanding IMOU) with the Corps of
Engineers in 1986. The MQ(J should facilitate and
enhance the cooperative effoil hetwaen the
agencies.
It is EPA's rntvntion that all monftoring plans for
OC9in dwmpFng at designated sites adopt a tiereef
monitoring ippn>achr such as the onedescj-ibed in
a paper titted "Tiered Ocean Disposal Morttoring
Will Minimise Data Requirements;' presenlad at the
Oceans '86 Conference {MTS/ IEEE Coherence
September 1986, Washington, DC; Volume 3 of the
Conference Procaedings). The objective of tiered
monitoring 3S to generate reliable informitlon cost-
fiffectivtlv for site management decision making.
This Is accomplished by concentrating monitotirjg
efforts on varifleation of predictions that regulitory
requirements and objectives are or wiJJ te met. Data
eofectron requirements will be baaed upon the
potential for impact. For many dredged material
sites, this may minimi data colfection beyond srta
boundaries. Informetion, such as data on site
chanacterization and marine TOourtes, waste
characteristics ind disposal operates wiJr ba
to diterrnine monitoring requirements.
22
-------
Municipal Sludge Disposal
On April 1,19B5, EPA sent tetters to iht nine New
York and New Jersey municipal sewafle authorities
advising (hem of the decision to deny redesigna-
lion of the 12-Mile Site, and requesting that they
submit schedules for (he shifting of dumping opera-
tions to che De*P*ater Municipal Sludge Dump Site
(DMSD Site I- EPA then proceeded to negotiate
priase-out schedules with each of the sewage
authorities, The negotiated schedules provide for
the complete cessation of all dumping of municipal
sludge at the 12-Mile Site by December 15, 1967.
The six New Jersey sewage authorities formed
a "joint venture" to manage their future sludge
dumping and have contracted vtfth private barging
operations (or the shift. Trie authorities committed
lo hauling a net total of 25% of their sludge to the
DMSD Site thro ugh December of 19S7, prior to the
tola I pliase-oui going into effect.
New York City began dumping >0% of iis sludge
at the DMSD Site in April 1986, The city decided
that it wanted to have irs own lleet of vessels and
is in the process of constructing three ne* barges.
The new barges will be brought on line beginning
in June 1987, and will take 40% of the sludge to
the DMSD Site by Seprember, 75% by November,
end ^00% by the deadline of Deternber 15, 1987,
The 12-Mile Sewage Slydge Site, located in the
New York Bight, has been used since 1924 for the
ocean dumping of municipal sludge. In 1973, subse-
quant to the enactment of the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act, EPA designated this
aiea as an "interim" site to be used primarily for
the dumping of municipal sludge. Th? 12-Mile Site
(and the Alternate 60-Mile Site> were approved by
EPA for use for the disposal of sewage sludge in
1979, Final designatiofl of these sites expired on,
December 31, 1981.
Petitions to reciesiflfiate the 12-Mile and 60-Mile
Sites were received by EPA fiom sewn of ihe nine
sewage authorities dumping undet Federal court
orders, EPA published a public notice of receipt of
these petitions and requested public comments in
December of 1982.
On May 4, 1984, EPA published a Notice of Ten-
tative Denial of Petitions to Rcdesigngte the 12- Mile
Site and scheduled three public hearings to receive
comments on this proposed action. The basis for
the tentative denial was thai continued use of thfi
-------
site would be inconsistent with criteria set forth in
Section 102(a) of the Mirirti Protection, Research,
and Sanctuaries Act and imptemenling regulations,
in dud ing:
1) Impacts of sludge dumping at the site are not con-
fined » the Site itself, but are dispersed widely
throughout the Bight Apex. Adverse impacts art the
Site at bast in part contibutid to by sludge
dumping Include:
s] bacterial contamination and dO$ure of
shellfishing areas;
b) perturbations in water "quality in and adjacent
to the site;
c) elevated levels of toxic metals and
organohaiogens In bottom stdiments in and near
the site including known fishing areas, and within
five nautical miles of coastai beaches;
-------
Monitoring at the Deepwater
Municipal Sludge Dump Site (DMSP)
Region II of EPA is responsible for DIV1SO Site
management and monitoring to assure that
dumpini activities and the site continue to meet the
ocean dumping and Site designation criteria, nespec-
lively Munkjpalittes which were required to retocaw
dumping operations to the DMSO Site were re-
quested b^ EPA on July 18.1986 to submit or revise
their permit applications, In conjunction With the
final designator, of the DMSD Sits, EPA announced
that it will review the site management information
to determine whether m s result of thetfeposa! ac-
tivities, the site continues to mset the site dwfena*
,ion criteria found at 40 CFR 228,5 and 228,6, The
will bs accomplished by periodically monitoring the
effects of disposal, measuring the rites of disposal,
and estimaiirvg the extent of continued disposal at
the site.
EPA has developed a monitoring program for the
DMSD Site. In 1965, a work group of EPA and
NQAA representatives was convene* to develop the
monitoring program. An advisory committee com-
prised of representatives of NQAA, EPA, State
government, and other Interested parlies is being
formed la rwview the monitoring data or* a conti-
nuing oasis and make periodic recommendations to
the DMSO Site management authority (the
Regional Administrator}. The monitoring program
consists of tiers of activities including compliance,
nearfleld, forfteld. mstine resource, and oceanic
process monitoring. The monitoring program is
designed 10 address specific objectives and data
needs which will enable EPA to perlorm the
assessments described above Successive monitor-
ing activities in the tiered process will usi mforma-
tion proufatecl bv previous tiers. Careful intent,on is
being paid to issues raised during the site designa-
tion such as concern lor impacts on beacties and
nearshorti waters end fishery rescues. The tiered
approach will allow EPA to focus on major concerns
in a step-bs'-stop fashion which is cost effective but
focuses on these imporrant issues first
In order to assess potential impacts related to
sludge dumpihfl ai the site, EPA wffl compare
baseline information «>conditions present m durn-
pina operations proceed. Monitoring surveys hav*
been conducted at the DMSD Site vicinity bv EPAr
NQAA and industrial permittees since 1374. A con-
certed effort wa» made early in the developmental
stages of the monitoring program to identify infor-
mation from othef progforTis within EPA (such as
-------
EPA's Office of Radiation Programs) and outside
EPA (from municipalities, rrtdustrfes, NOA A/Na-
tional Marine Fisheries Service, the Interior Depart-
ment's Minerals Management Service, and Depart-
ment of Energy) to use in the develop mem of the
monitoring prog ram and in future impact analyses.
Most of this information fe documented in the draft
document "Studies Conducted in the Vicinity of the
106-Mile Deep water Municipal Sludge Site,"
EPA has collected information in surveys over the
past three years, prior to the Initiation of sfudge
dumping operations. These su/vevs w&rt conducted
in July 19G4, August {two surveys! and November
1985, and February 1986 to collect sediment and
water quality samples and to provide endangered
species information. Nearfield effects and poterttiiJ
transport and dispersion of the sfudge art being
evaluated first; other phases of the rnuJti-year pfan
will be tmptemented as these data become a variable.
EPA has established baseline stations few com-
parisons of surface, mid-water, and near-bottom
water and to coded sediment samples, located
within, at the boundaries, immediately outside, and
beyond the dump site. Samples ooJtecteid from
these stations wiJI be inaiyzed for a suite of
parameters for comparison with base-line data,
Sam pies for impact analyses will focus on a smaller
set of indicators; however, the baseline data are in-
tended lo a How for comparison with any number
Of alternate impact indicators, as may prove
necessary. Procedures for analyses of the EPA
bas«lir>e samples are documented in the report tftted
"Analytical Procedures Fn Support of the 106-Mile
Deep water MuracipafSJudgi Site Monitoring Pro-
gram," Procedures tot at-sea sample processing and
sample coJlection are contained in the draft
document titled "Sa-mplt CollHction Quality
Assurance/Quality Control Procedures in Support
of the 106 Mile Deep water Municipal Sludge Site
Monitoring Program,''
Key samples (and their respective field replicates)
wilt be analyzed "for the fofFowing parameters, as
aflowed by storage and sample size: metals
silver, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, mercury,
lead, zinc), organics including aromatic hydrocar-
bons, (e.g,, poJyaromatic hydrocarbons, aldrin,
dteldrin, chlordane, DDT, hsptachlor, to*aphene)r
PCB isorrors, pesticides, and coprosianoL Sedi-
ment samples wilf generally be analyzed for grain
sfee and Ctostridium, as well. Infaunai analyses will
be conducted for selected samples eolteeted. Wkter
quality samples will afso be analyzed for total
suspended solids and adenosfne tri-ph asp hate.
Standard oceanpgnphic data have also been cof-
lected with all fWd samples.
Since the initiation of regular sewage sludge
dumping operations on March 17, 1988, EPA con-
ducted Fmpact assessment surveys for ihe DM SO
Site. A survey was conducted in August 1986 to col-
lect preliminary infofmatlon on sludge behivior
within the site end in the immediate vicinity. An in-
depth stydy is planned to assess sewige sludge
plume characteristics, initial impact, and near field
fate.
Activities on the August 1986 surwy were de-
signed to obtain water column measurements of
specific tracers of sludge to determine whether
sewege sludgt was transported in detectable con-
centrations to the dumpsite boundary, Surface and
subpycnoclfne water column measurtmints were
taken at selected reference stations outside of the
dumpsite, Hydrographiq and current data in rhe
vicinity of the dump$ite and endangered species
reports were also mucte on thte eruiss, The plume
was visible throughout the study period; in addi-
tion, drogues were deployed to track the moverntnt
of the waste field. Semples were collected in the
waste field at the point of discharge and at the
dumpsite boundary. These samples and the
reference station samples ere being anaryzed for the
required compounds. Results of this BBS surwy will
be vary rmportant for establishing the direction of
future monitoring work at the site.
-------
OSV Peter W. Anderson
In June 13B5, EPA's survey vessel-previously the
OSV AnieSope --tfvas renamed as a tribute to EPA
scientist Dr. Peter W. Anderson, who devoted 19n
years of his life to research of the oceans and water-
ways of the Ufilled Stales,
The OSV Peter W. Anderson (The AntJwson) is
used tjy EPA for ocean monitoring and site designa-
tion field studies. It is fully equipped with three
laboratories- a wet lab for initial biological sample
processing, a chemistry laboratory, and a micro-
biology rabgratory- as well as a computerized
survey cantei from which survey operations are
conducted.
The Anderson is staffed by both an operating
crew (16 paisonst and a scientific crew (up to 15 per-
sons), fora total maximum crew complement of 30
persons. The operating crew (Captain, mates,
engineers, and deck personnel) is supplied by MAR,
Inc., of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, under contract to
Marine Operations Division of the Office of Marine
and Estwine Protection, The scientific crew in-
cludes a Chief Scientist, responsible for each mis-
sion, who reports to a Supervisory Chief Scientist
in EPA Meadquatleis in Washington, D,C., and ad-
ditional scientific crew to accomplish each mission.
The scientific crew moy he personnel from EPA
Headquarters, Regional offices, other Federal agen-
cies, EPA contractors, or university personnel.
Qn-bQS'H survey equipment includes over-!he-
side sampling gear, including ciefip walir sampling
capabilities, laboratory analytical equipment, an
underwater television system with taping
capabiliEies, ondasidescan sonar unit, The Ander-
son has equipment onboard to obtain samples from
the water column, sediments beneath the sea, or
emissions from incinerator vessels, The Anderson
can collect samples of dredged material, industrial
waste or sewage sludge.
In 1964, surveys of ocean dredged material
disposal sites included five sites around Puerto Rica
Also included were three surveys conducted by EPA
divers on the Tampa Harbor Project disposal site.
These surveys are being conducted as a result of
agreements reached between EPA, the Corps of
Engineers, and Manage County to monitor closely
for any adverse effects caused by ocean disposal
of dredged material.
During 1985, 15 monitoring arid baseline data col-
lection eruists were conducted, including the
form&r Philadelphia sewage sludga disposal site,
proposed ocean incineration sites, the Deepwater
Municipal Sludfjt Dump (OMSDt Site, and the
Tampa HarbOf site. The incineration and DMSD Site
surveys involved collection of surface water, suh-
irieirnocline water, and bottom avdimerits from afl
deep as 9,000 feet Tha Anderson also assisted
NOAA's Marine Sanctuary Program in its pre-
disturbanee survey «f the USS Monitor Project,
which included r«rnot« sensing (underwater
videotape and still color photography), site
-------
mapping, and tnvironrrantaf monitoring of the USS
Monitor site,
In addition, a preliminary survey was done to ob-
tafn baseline data at four potsntfai fish waste
disposal sites, Information gathered wilf chareeterfee
the present condition of the marine environment,
and will provide baseline water quality artd binthic
reference data for each of the four potential dump
sites,
During 1966,16 surveys were completed by the
Anderson at 23 ocean disposal sites. In addition,
technical as$i§tar>ce was provided to NOAA in their
continuing study of the USS Monitor National
Marine Sanctuary, to EPA's Office at Radiation Pro-
grams in a recovery of one of their deep ocean cur-
rent meter arrays, and to the Off ice-of Public Af-
fairs, in the preparation of a documentary videotape
on the Anderson,
Sites surveyed during the years 1384-1986 are
listed in Table Vtl, Sites listed are dredged material
sites, unless noted otherwise, The number of
surveys conducted at a particular sitt is Indicated
by the number of X'a. The Anderson also conducted
a data retrieval survey for NQAA, and an equipment
calibration survey foi the Naval Oceanographie
Research and Deustopmem Activity during 1985,
Table VII. Sites Surveyed from 1984-1986
Region
1
Jl
111
Survey Site
Cape Cod Bay fish waste, MA (data
collection— 4 sites)
Boston (Cape Cod Bay), MA
Deep water Municipal Sludge Dump Site
New York Bight
North Atlantic Ocean Incineration Site
San Juan, PR
Areeibo, PR
Mayaguez, PR
Ponce, PR
Yabucoa, PR
Norfolk, VA
Dam Neck, VA
Ocean Cityr MD (outfalls)
Bethany Beach, MD (outfalls)
Philadefphta Sewage Sludge Site
1984
X
Various Sites
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1885
V
/"!i
X
Various
XX
X
X
X
X
X
ii«S
k
y\
X
x
Various
X
X
X
3V
Delaware River and Estuary, DE (gxygerl
demand studies)
Delaware Wreck, DE [monitoring)
Bay {Rug. I If data collection}
Morehead City, NC
Wilmington, NC
Cape Hatieras, NC
Southern Incineration Site Study
Jacksonvilft, FL
Palm Beach, FL
Port Everglades,
CJiarfotte Harbor,
Tampa, FL
Port St. Joe, FL
Panama City, FL
Pensacola, FL
Mobile, AL
Paseagoula, MS
FL
FL
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
Tampa Harbor Dredged Material
Disposal Project
The Tampi Harbor Oredgtii Material Disposal Pro-
ject was a major dredging project by the U.S. Ar-
my Corps of Engineers in Tatnpa Bay, Florida, to
wider* and deepen th& existing shipping channel to
accommodate deeper draft vessels for the traospon
of phosphate ore. Approximately 9 million of the 70
million cubic yards of material rtmoved from the
channel were ocean disposed.
Interim disposal Site A, for ihe disposal of
dredged material, is located approximately 13
naunical miles vwest of Egmont Kay, at the mouth
of Tampa Bav- Approximately five million cubic
yards of dredged material were disposed at Site A
from June 1980 until December 1982.
In April 1981, a study for trie Manatee Couruy
Board of County Commi&siorters to evaluate the ef-
fects of offshore disposal of dredged material con-
cluded that hard bottom habitats present at the
boundaries of Site A were partially buried. In addi-
tion, hard bottom comrnurtsties, including hard and
soft corals and sponges, wore present in the vicini-
ty of the site. EPA began a search for an acceptable
alternative disposal site in October 1981,
Manstee County filed a tawsuit in May 1982
against EPA and the Corps to halt the disposal of
dredged ma serial at Site A. In December "W2, lh«
court ordered the immediate cessation of disposal
operations at Site A.
A total of eight alternative disposal sites w«re
surveyed in 1983 and 1964. In November 1983, (he
Agency designated Site 4 gs the disposal site for
dredged material from the Tartpa Harbor Project for
a period of three years. Site 4, approximately 18
nautical miles west of 6gmc?nt Key, i* a square site,
two nautical miles on a side, with minimal hard bot-
tom areas,
One of the stipulations of tha designation of Site
4 was that the Agency would monitor the effacts
of disposal operations at Site 4, to assure that no
significant adverse erwirorimental effects due to
disposal occurred beyond the boundaries of the
site. The jnonNorir-Kj program was ctevetoped with
extensive cooperative efforts between EPA, the
Corps, other Federal, State, and local governmcjnl
agencies and scientists, and participation by the
public*
Disposal of dredged material from ttie Tarn pa Hyr-
bdr Pcoject began at Site 4 in fate May 1984, and
continued through early October 1985, when the
project was completed. Approximately 3,6 million
cubic: yards erf material wer« deposited at the site
in a r»a*raw. east to w«si a ma extending for less than
29
-------
one mile below the centerline- of the site,
creating a substantial flat-topped mound. Sirica
eessatfon erf disposal operations, considerable algal
and initial sponge and hard and soft coralline growth
has occurred, as well isthe establishment of habitat
for fish and invertebrates.
Monitoring surveys at Stte4 were completed by
the Agency it approximately quarterly intervals In
April, August, and December 1384, March and Ju-
ly of 19S5, and semi-annually in January and July,
13fii, During the lata summer and fall of 1385, four
major tropical storms or hurricanes passed near or
over Site 4; a monitoring survey in January 1SB6
revealed neither damage to or movement of the
dredged material rnourid, nor any damage at any
of the 13 monitoring stations tstabFisbed on the
ocean bottom to monitor the potential spread of the
dredged material. No significant spread of
the dredged matarfa-i was detected beyond the
boundaries of this site. Site 4 has established new
habitats for fish and1 inverts bra te§ in a previously
flat, sandy area,
Finally, the Agency held four meetings with
various local interest groups, representatives of
State agencies-, the press, and the public, to explain
the results of the extensive monitoring program the
Agency has conducted in the Tampa area. These
meetings, held in July 1985, November J985, Miy
1986, and December 1966, were welcomed by the
various groups and agencies as 3 means for
understanding the implications of the Tampa Har-
bor Project.
-->•«< x^ ' "-" ':-
:<'E ^^'w*?3;.«£riiaf^.iMUi3^iJs
-------
Incineration at Sea
On October 21, 1333, EPA made a tentative deter-
mination to issue W two special permits to
Chemical Waste Management, Inc., and Ocean
Combustion Services, B.V. [CWM/GCSJ, for incin-
eration of up to 300,000 mitric tons of mixed
organic chemical wastes, including polychkirinated
over a three-year period on-board the
I and Vtitcanus li at the Gulf Incinatation
Siler and {bl a six-month research permit for the
Wlcgnus It to incinerate DDT wastes at the Gulf In-
cineration Site- Public hearings were held in
Brownsville, Taxis, and Mobile, Alabama-
On April 23, 1084, the Hearing Officer recom-
mencltd to the Assistant Administrator for Water
ihat the special permits not b€ issued to CWM/QCS
and that new research permits be issued in order
to conduct further teslrng and monitoring, The
hearing Officer also recommended that any spec is I
permits be delayed until specific ocean incineration
regulations were promulgated.
On May 23,1i&*, the Assistant Administrator for
Water made a final decision to deny issuance of thti
special and research per mi is, He called for develop-
ment of ft comprehensive research plan before any
further research burns take place, and lor regtils-
tions to be promulgated before issuance OF any
special permits,
Comprehensive incineration-at-sea regulations
wen* proposed on February 28, 1985 (50 FR8222).
The regulations were developed under an extraor-
dinarily open process designed to involve the public
actively. In June 1984, interested parties were in-
vited to attend iwo meetings to develop options for
the regulations. Comments received al these
meetings significantly influenced the final draft of
the rule. The proposed regulations included criteria
for FOviewing and evaluating permit applications,
conducting incifieration operations at sea, and
designating and managing ocean incineration sites-
Written and verbal comments were accepted dur-
ing the 120-day comment period, which closed on
Juno 2Sr 1935.
Five public hearings were herd on the proposed
regulations during April and May in West Long
Branch, New Jersey; New Orleans, Louisiana;
Brownsville, Texas: San Francisco, California; and
Mobile, Alabama- In addition, the Agency con-
dupted numerous briefings and inform a tiunal
meetings and established a bilingual communica-
tions service in Brownsville, Five thousand one
hundred forty-wight people registered at the five
hearings, emd 367 presented statements far the
record. As of June 28, 1985, EPA hart received 933
post cards and petitions containing over -3,500
31
-------
comments- The Agency is evaluating these
CDmrnisntE, and they wiJJ be addressed when a iinaJ
tula is promulgated.
Jn January 1984, EPA initiated *n incineration
Study to collect better information for EPA deci-
sions on hazardous waste management options,
particularly decisions related to ocean Incfrieration-
The study addressed five major areas: regufatory
programs, incineration technologies, market Con-
siderations, comparison of risks from ocean- and
lan-d-bissd incineration, and public concerns. Tha
final report, "Assessmentof Incineration as a Treat-
mint Method for Lkjuid Qnganie Hazardous Waste/'
was issued ir> March 19BS (EPA Office of Polity,
Planning and Evaluetfon, Washington, D.C.J.
In February 1984, EPA's Science Advisory Board
(SAB) initiated p review of incineration of liquid
hazardous waslfs on (and and at sea. The purposes
of the review, as requested by the Administrator and
Deputy Administrator of EPA, were to evaluate the
overall adequacy Of existing scientific d&la for use
in future decision making and to neeomnnind areas
for improvement, The SAB considered six areasi
transfer of wastes, combustion and incineration pro-
cesses. Stack and plume sampling, environmental
transport and fate processes, health and environ-
mental effects, and research needs. The SAB'5
report was issued in April 5S85.
During 1984 and 1985, the Agency prepared an
Incineration-A I-5 ea Research Strategy that out-
lined how the Agency intends to evaluate further
the snvif on mental impacts of ocean Incineration,
The Research Strategy was initia% developed in
mid-19&4 and piovidtd to the public and scientists
in draft form in the Fall of 1984. A public meeting
was held on November 13, 1984, to discuss the draft
strategy. The final vergron was issued on February
T9, 1985- Th& research effort includes three phases:
a land-based phase to verify analytical methods for
sampling Incinerator emissions and determining ihe
aquatic toxicity of thew emissions; an at-sea
research burn to collect and test emission samples;
and long-term studies.
During 1385 gnd 1986, trie Agency proceeded to
implement its Research Strategy. Four tests were
conducted on 3 system that collects incinerator
emissions for chemical characterization and for
anafysisof toxieity to marine organisms. Th« Agen-
cy is also actively engaged In analyzing trtesea sur-
face microlayer to determine its composition, and
to assess possible effects from Incineration opera-
tions, as well as developing methods for scientifical-
ly sampling various invironmenial media,
In May 1985, two companies — At Sea Incinera-
tion, jnc, [A5J> arid Chemical Waste Management
(CWM) — applied for permits to conduct research
consistent with the Agency's Research Strategy.
On December 16, T985, EPA made a tentative
determination to issue a research permit to CWM
(50 ffl 51360]. AS I defaulted on government
guaranteed loans, No permit was issued to AS I, The
proposed research permit would have authorized
CWM to incinerate fuel oils containing between 10
and 30 percent polyehtorTnated biphenyls at the
North Atlantic Incineration Site over a 19-day period
using one of the vessels' incinerators,
PuWJc comments on the proposed research per-
mit were accapted from December 16, 1985 to
February 15, 1986. During this period, four public
hisrinffs were heJd in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
Rsd Bank, New Jersey; Wilmington, De aware; and
Ocean City, Mirylind. A tqtal of 2,854 people
registered at the hearings and 267 people presented
statements. By the close of the comment period,
trie Agency received 1,644 submissions.
On May 1, TS9S,
-------
Near Coastal Waters Planning Initiative
In liSS, at the request of the Administratof of EPA,
the Office of Water began a bng-range Strategic
Planning Initiative to address the problems of in-
creasing degradation of the nation's near coastal
waters iNCWsK The pressures exerted on the near-
shore waters from grawingpopiJJatiOTis, non-point
source run-off, industrial and municipal discharges,
and assorted waste disposal activities are increas-
ing, and must be evaluated and gddiessed. The
NCWs project, although it encompasses much mori
than ocean disposal, coordinates its activities with
the ocean disposal program.
For purposes of the planning initiative, NCWs are
defined as estuaries and coastal marine waters in-
cluding the territorial sea and the contiguous zone,
including areas G< grew* distance where necessary
to protect the coastal barrier islands and the mouths
of certain estuaries. 1936 activities under the N CWs
initiative included initial regional, state, public, and
interagency outreach activities, the development of
a detailed problem statement, and strategic options
pa per and impte mentation plan. The plan presents
a siries of regulatory and administrative femeciies
that can be used more effectively in future years to
address and control environmental ttegradatipri in
near coastal waters.
-------
Radiation Program
The following activities were undertaken by EPA's
Office of Radiation Programs (QRPl from T984-13S6,
in connection with previous at-sea disposal of low-
level radioactive waste, as part of its continuing
monitoring efforts and diepaea transport studies.
Jn 1984, EPA, with the assistance of NOAA, began
a monitoring program to acquire sediment and biota
samples for radioactivity analyses, The data from
these analyses a re intended to provide baseline in-
formation on radioactivity levete In sediment and
biota collected from numerous U.S, east and1 west
coast ocean areas, both within and outside of sites
formerly used by the United States for the ocean
disposal of low-ieveJ radioactive wastes.
The EPA Eastern Environmental Radiation Facfff-
ty (EiflF) has analyzed sediment grab-samples col-
lected in 1984 and 1985 from off-shore areas of Cen-
tral and Southern California, and sediment sub-
cores from the Atlantic Ocean 2800-meter waste
disposal area. A report .is in preparation.
In May, 1984, EPA initiated g two-year study of
near-bottom ocean Currents in the Atlantic Ocean
3BOO-meter low-level radioactive waste dSsj>osal site,
located on the lower continental rise near the mouth
of the Hudson Submarine Canyon, NOAA assisted
EPA by twice providing ship support services to ac-
complish the data collectfpns arid servicing of the
array. The report wJif be issued in 1937.
fn December 1964, EPA published a report titled
'Data from Studiei of Previous Radioactive Waste
Disposal in Massachusetts Bay" (EPA Report
^520/1 -84-031}, which presents results of studies
conducted in 1981 and 19S2 at the MmMchuatts
Bay low leveJ radioactive waste disposal site, and
the Food and Drug Admini&t/stiaivEPA Boston
District Marketplace Seafood Radioactivity Analysis
Program,
In 1995 and T936, EPA's Office of Radiation Pro-
grams, using the Nsvfs manned deep submersible,
the OSRVAwdon. surveyed the ocean bottom and
water column in the region of the two Farallon
Islands tow-level radioactive waste disposal sites,
loeaied approximately forty mfles southwest of San
Francisco at average depths of 900 maters and 1700
meters.
In November 19B& GftP began participating rn
ooth ths Mysssl Watch and Senthic Swwfllanqe
components of NCAA's National Status and Trends
Program. Under this program, bivalves, fish, and
sediment samples are being collected by NOAA for
subsequent radfoinalysis by the EPA EERF, Sam-
pling stations are Jocated inshore from formerfv-
used US. low-JeweJ radioactive waste disposal sites
in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans; control sites are
located Fn the Guff of
34
-------
Enforcement
The U.S. Coast Guard has responsibility for
surveillance activities to prevent unlawful dumping
or unlawful transportation of materials for dump-
ing, and to assure that authorized ocean dumping
is perfoiined in compliance with permit conditions.
Vfe&sels and aircraft patrols, ship riders on boird
dumping vessels, in-port boardings and inspection,
arid Vessel Traffic Services radar are several methods
used by the Coast Gua*d for surveillance of ocean
dumping operations. Trig scheduling of surveillance
resources is aided by a permit condition which re-
quires permittees to give authorities advance
notification prior to commencing any dumping
operations.
Pursuant to Section 1Qflc> of the MPRSA and
the regulations the/sunder, information concerning
violations of the- Act and of ocean dumping permit
conditions Is forwarded to EPA Regional Ad-
ministrators for appropriate action when civil act ions
are indicated, or to the Attorney General of the
United States for criminal cases, Suspected viola-
tions are documented by the Coast Guard to the
maximum extent practicable and referred to EPA for
investigation and determination of passible enforce-
ment actions. Evidentiary material may include
witness statements, photos, samptes, message traf-
fic, and tog excerpts.
Two snforcsment actions were taken: by EPA In
1985, One was for dumping without a permit, and
the other for burning outside the woodburning site.
In 1986, five enforcement actions were initiated
by EPA; Two actions were taken by Regies II; two
in Region IV, and one in Region VI,
-------
-------
-------
------- |